User talk:Jason Rees/Archive4

nominate

) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Treasury Note (1890–91)
   .
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving
  through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Natalia Kills discography
  .
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email

) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Wasa–Arthur

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk

)

The article Cyclone Wasa–Arthur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Wasa–Arthur for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, since you're Wikipedia's local expert on tropical cyclones, I decided to ask you this question. As we know, particularly destructive cyclone names are retired. However, a thought recently came into my mind: can retirements be appealed? For example, during the meetings of the relevant agencies to discuss retirements, is it possible for people attending to, for whatever reason, appeal a request for retirement for a name? And if tropical cyclone names are retired, does this mean that, if in the future, a totally new list of cyclone names is created for that basin, the retired name will not be considered for inclusion? Finally, have there ever been cases of tropical cyclone names that were retired, but eventually "reinstated"? Thanks. 125.212.121.211 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can answer this one fairly quickly. As far as we're aware, names are never repealed once retired out of respect for the delegates that requested their removal. Though uncommon, when entirely new lists of names are drawn up (usually stemming from a change in the agency that oversees the basin), it is possible for retired names to be put back in the list. This has happened a few times in the Western Pacific when the Joint Typhoon Warning Center was naming storms. The most notable occurance of this was with the name Bess which was retired after a storm in 1974 but re-added after male names were incoprorated into the lists in 1979. It was used again in 1982 and subsequently retired a second time for damage it caused in Japan. I believe there are a few other cases, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. As for your last question, I do recall something about that being possible (I think it was again during the JTWC-era in the WPac) where names were only temporarily retired. I don't believe any agency has that sort of policy in effect now though. Hope this helps!

Best regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I believe that the relevant meetings have debates and a show of hands vote over which names to be retired, so i guess that would count as the so called appeal. Generally speaking once a name is retired it wont ever be used again, even in a brand new list for the basin, however, there have been some names retired and reused for various reasons. In fact in the Atlantic basin during the 1950/60s names were only retired for 10 years, before they were re-added if there was a suitable gap. Hope this helps.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I got your message but I can't seem to make additions to WebCite at the moment. I will keep trying.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 11:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

They're up now.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dominic was used again in

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk

[1] --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The article Cyclone Sina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Sina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's

Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk

The article 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jason Rees. I have thought that we should create the 2014 typhoon season timeline (or even 2015, 16, 17...) always on June 30. What do you think? If you agree, don't agree or change the creating date, go to my talk page. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. Bet just asking, we can create it right now? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you are saying we can create it when the next storm forms? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any definitive date. Just don't worry yet, there's no need now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

…this article needing approval: [2] Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally think its ready to be published.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Good save at Typhoon Pongsona. I shouldn't edit when I'm tired. Thanks. Sprinkler21 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21

No problem :).Jason Rees (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jason, long time no talk! I saw that you reverted my edit to the SSHWS article; I removed Shary from the list of Category 1 examples because the list explicitly states that it is of storms that made landfall at Category 1 intensity; since Shary never made landfall, I removed it from the list. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, again. I found a site that there was economic damages from Hagibis. Do you thin that you will be part of the seasonal effects on the 2014 Pacific typhoon season? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I will be watching the 2014 Pacific typhoon season very closely and editing it at times.Jason Rees (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Books & Bytes recipients:

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. "latest in the year", not "most recent". Still, that's very ambiguous wording, and should be clarified. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that was how we were supposed to do it. But thanks for helping out anyways. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for today's

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read my edit summary? It is of little use to have several {{CN}} templates stack right next to each other. They mess up the page's formatting as well, and they are absolutely terrible for the page aesthetics. One should be able to cover all.

I do not care if you think that they are terrible for the page aesthetics or if you think it is of little use to have several {{CN}} templates. There is a very specific reason for them to be there since 1 does not show you that 1-3 references are needed to prove the the names were used.Jason Rees (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed that some of the

Alright. I fixed some piping for the Australian articles. The South-West Indian Ocean articles did not require any fixing. Only the South Pacific is needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at

I've fixed the display to restore the look on the old articles, but also give you the look you wanted on the current storm. But please test future changes using

Template:Infobox hurricane/testcases and be sure nothing got broken unintentionally. --Netoholic @

20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert war on templates being used. The coloration of the Current Status line was already in the {{

WP:BRD) but do not edit war on templates especially since your revert is actively breaking hundreds of articles for old storms. --Netoholic @

20:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't the BR anymore, now you're reverting for coloration, which was brought in from pre-merge. If you want to change it, discuss it on talk (I really don't care, all I care about is that you're reverting other things along with that, and your edits are not being pre-tested in the sandbox to uncover these kinds of errors. It is very bad to make edits to such a widely used template without sandbox testing, no matter how small you think the change is. --Netoholic @

That BR you added wouldn't fix the problem on older articles, because the winds line wrapped anyway, but made an ugly break between the km and mph. My change reinserts the BRs on old storms, but doesn't BR on current. It looks pretty good now on both. On the coloration, I don't really care if its colored or not, but that coloration was in the pre-merge template, so I preserved it, and I think its there to add to the "alert" aspect of the template on current storms. Bring it up on the talk page, get some feedback. I'll remove it myself if people agree to remove it. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to

Please join the discussion about the fate of this article.98.174.223.41 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I've found this source: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/local-news/2014/08/02/lpa-leaves-over-p5-m-damages-misor-357308 . It says about the damages from a LPA, which actually became Inday and then Nakri. An anonymous user doesn't agree with this, since he said that it is a different LPA, somehow. Do you think we should put it in the season effects in Nakri's section that it caused $116K in damages? Just saying that this section is the same in the talk page of the 2014 season. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

2001 Atlantic hurricane season#Season impact (and wherever else this type of table is). -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That table needs to be changed from another reason as well. Since 2011, we no longer include landfalls on the table.

^{Pacific Hurricane}

20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please advise on if the colours in "Template:Storm colour" were ok, as the were presented before this edit? Id rather not see such a significant change to the colours if we don't have too. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi ! I saw your message only a few days ago, I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the moment. It was complicated to follow all the discussions, but I think I managed to understand most of it... I do not feel it is necessary for me to participate in the debate because it's going in the right direction (from a technical point of view at least).

What I wrote in 2012 was still valid. We have to either remove the links that had "storm colours" as background color, or either change some colours (2 or 3 of them, I don't remember but I can check anytime if you want). Of course, removing the links is way easier.

It's still not perfect, because of the maps and some colours that are difficult to distinguish between themselves. I'd say our aim is to "improve" accessibility, not perfection. It's actually extremely hard to create perfectly accessible maps with 5 different colours. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Timeline of the 2014 Pacific typhoon season page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

I have done some investigation for TS Lingling and the first TD (91W) in 2014. NRL relocated 91W significantly and abandoned all positions until 12Z on January 13, but other agencies considered them as the same system. JMA analysed that the first TD degenerated into an LPA and developed back to a TD, but it was not significantly relocated at all. PAGASA and CWB also considered them as the same system. I have updated the track image, replacing the abandoned positions with JMA positions. Moreover, I am planning to write an article for Lingling, as the current description contains some mistakes. -- Meow 15:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions
   ) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to be eager to fix all of them, I will let you finish the rest. I have no time for the edit conflicts, and you seem to know what you are doing. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Jason. You haven't been editing in the 2014 PTS article for a while and I am the only one editing too much like admins. I was wondering that since I help and do the season timelines, I am testing the 2014 PTS one. I thought that the timeline is small so I added the "barset:break" after Neoguri and I thought it is right. Is it alright? I was saying this to you since the anonymous users don't agree with me and revert my edits. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer

historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is Rishabh. I have created a discussion where your views will be greatly appreciated, regarding whether Land Depressions should be considered as "other storms" from now on. Pleae have a look at the discussion where I've explained everything.

Hi Jason. I was wondering that what happened to the Timeline of the 2013 Pacific typhoon season? Do you know who put the good information in there? I thought that it was good information, but it is too much. Also there are a couple of sentences saying about from the CMA agency, which is not official. Also again, I thought there is too much PAGASA names. (Example(s): Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) has made landfall or Tropical Storm Yagi (Dante) has intensified...) Want to help fix this article? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The file you asked for is here: 2014-08-19, 0000z--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for moving the TWOs, my bad!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason Rees, do you remember the other topic about this TL that it has to be in the SWio instead of the AusR season? This one though is different, but it is about the same TL. This anon. user is reverting my edits of what you told me to do. You told me to put an "other storms" section in the SWio season and mention about the TL in the AusR season, if I am right. Can you please also keep an eye on this guy, too? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen your comment about your reversion in the Timeline of the 2014 Pacific typhoon season. Your comment says that "how many times I have to tell you...", although I am pretty sure that you didn't tell me 'how many times' (not being rude here). So if that's the case, then I will be doing some fix-ups in the timeline article and have thought to replace the LPA statements to a tropical disturbance statements. Is that OK now? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No - the first mention of a system in PTS timelines has always got to be "The JMA (or whichever agency) reported that a tropical depression had formed about x km (x mi) to the x of land mass y. This is for various reasons which include that tropical disturbances/LPAs are not tracked by the JMA in a named storms BT.Jason Rees (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now and thanks. So it always has to start with tropical depressions, not LPAs or tropical disturbances. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - we also do not put generic statements in. Like this one you added earlier: "03:00 UTC - Nuri had undergo

millibars, as a small eye started to develop" because its not relevant to the timeline and could be argued to be original research. We also do not put "*00:00 UTC - Nuri intensifies into a category 2 typhoon" since it is so broad. Just keep to the format that i have put in place please.Jason Rees (talk

) 12:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions
  ) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions
  ) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions
  ) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--

The Wikipedia Library Team

23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the

Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list

.

Hey, Jason. I just translated that section into the German WP and found, that you messed up some of the citations (it semes you copied them from last year but forgot to actualize all datum). Also there is still some SPac stuff in it which I think should be put away. Regards, --Matthiasb (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  List of retired South Pacific tropical cyclone names page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

Hello Wikimedians!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier
  - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on

our partners page

. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--

The Wikipedia Library Team

.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the

Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list

.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  List of retired Australian cyclone names page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help) and a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

I've added 3 TWOs as an entry for a Perth Low on Talk:2014–15 Australian region cyclone season/December. I will look into the other archiving issues you raised.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 20:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jangmi officially dissipated at 00:00 UTC on January 2, so the official date of dissipation is January 2. As Wikipedia uses “dissipation” to describe when the system dissipated, it should be January 2 instead of January 1. This rule is also used to other storms. -- Meow 06:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

cyclones
Thank you for contributions to quality articles on cyclones and typhoons, such as

awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 373rd recipient of my

) 09:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cyclone Nigel

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk

) 04:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jason Rees, it's been a week without a response, though you've been busy elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you wish to pursue this nomination, you need to respond now; the quid pro quo review you need to supply is long past due. Please give this your attention; I'd hate for it to have to close, given the work you've put into the article. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice the ping, there is something you need to do on the nomination page. Please stop by soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.

I know that but i wonder the ZODW weaker or stronger than TDis. Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader

Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions

) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• level-4 vital article, to Good Article
  ;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least,
  Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark
  (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email

)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader

Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions

) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• level-4 vital article, to Good Article
  ;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least,
  Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark
  (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email

)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Retirement

We can easily say that those are retired because the PAGASA mentioned that those typhoons are decommisioned, thus all except Jose have brought significant impacts to the Philippines. PAGASA said that except for a very few storms, names that have caused at least 300 deaths or at least PHP 1 billion ($22.6 million 2015 USD) - and the names were changed, are therefore considered as retired.

• [3] - Subtropical renaming

Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
• New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
• TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nadi

I don't think this was a problem with the upload, it's a fault in Webcite's retrieval. It won't currently retrieve anything, even things which have been retrievable in the past. Even the examples on Webcite's homepage don't work.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It turned out my uploads on 11 March had failed, as well as the retrieval problem for earlier files. I think it's all straight now.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

90Q.INVEST?

Can the need warning names 90Q.INVEST in South Atlantic with SS Cari? 123.27.153.191 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No we do not need to be noting that it was called 90Q.Invest by the US forecasting agencies.Jason Rees (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Nigel

On 23 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyclone Nigel, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1985 the Fijian island of Viti Levu was hit by two tropical cyclones‍—‌Nigel and Eric‍—‌within 36 hours? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Nigel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Jason Rees,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Regional Specialized Meteorological Center

Hi, I did some copyediting in the

tropical cyclones section of the article – in the diff it might look like I only moved things around, but I did edit the text as well, so it would be great if you could check whether it's still factually correct. I hope I've made it a bit clearer and more readable. --filip (talk

) 19:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ive made a few tweaks to your wording since it to make it clearer that both TCWC's and RSMCs provide the warnings publicly and help NMHSS like Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico and Vanuatu. Otherwise it seems fine though it does expose a couple of weakness in the writing i think.Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I right or wrong about Maysak?

Am I right, Jason? As of right now and making this message (0800Z 07/04), Maysak is still active according to JMA, right? It's because 3 people don't agree with me and they declared that it had dissipated. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called

Given that you've been actively editing the article, would you mind handling this problem? Thanks. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not again. You did made lots of edits in the 2014 PTS season article but one of those edits I didn't agree with and it was the edit with 2 storms which were named by PAGASA and designated by JTWC (04W (Caloy) and 14W (Karding)). First of all, I didn't agree with this 2 years ago when you edited 30W (Wilma) on the 2013 PTS article, then you explained it to me. So I agreed and you told me to do this to every season with these types of scenarios. But Meow and 2 other people disagreed with me so I explained it and they explained it. It is confusing to us, actually. Also that's why in the 2013 PTS article, it still states 30W (Wilma), unless you leave a message to inform other users about this. :| Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day @Typhoon2013:, there is no need for the JTWC designator to be there as it is redundant and just serves to confuse the reader.Jason Rees (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Only seen this message just today, sorry. Actually, what I thought that it's confusing to people that if it says only Caloy when the infobox states that the JTWC had warned it, which means obviously in the WPac basin, when the JTWC warns on a storm they designate it. But if it says 04W (Caloy) I don't really see a confusion there, unless we change in its infobox that PAGASA had warned on it most than the JMA to make it more sense. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. I don't know why but you've been changing lots of stuff and is it ok if I could fix the table in the 2014 PTS article in the names section? Should I do it in the other seasons as well? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Most of the changes i am making to the 2014 PTS article are in order to try and improve the quality of it, so that its something we can all be proud of and maybe have up on the main page one day but thats a long way off. Now for the naming lists i have no objection to using the format of names on other season articles, but we have to be careful while implementing it because the format i have introduced needs tweaking for each season.Jason Rees (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Two nights ago, I was just doing some extras and reading text of the Pacific typhoon seasons from 1990-99. The 1994's Katring made me investigate what caused the retirement of 2010's Katring. I compared the Katirng from 1987 and 1994 and found out that Teresa (1994) caused more damage and impacted the Philippines more, but Thelma (1987) did not really caused direct impact but did cause a storm surge which impacted the Philippines. So I thought that it was the 1994 one. Just my thoughts. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Sorry for the late reply - been busy with other things. While it is great that you are researching things, we can not state that PAGASA retired Katring because of the 1987 based on the somewhat flimsy evidence you have found. I have a source that directly states Katring was retired because of 2010. Not that i believe it.Jason Rees (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. I stated that Katring was retired because of the 1987 one because in the 2005 PTS article, it says that Undang was retired from the naming list because it was retired before and was replaced by Urduja and that's what I thought why Katring was retired. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats news to me @Typhoon2013: - will check it out. Please let me know if there are any others around.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean any others around? You mean storm names like this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the Isis one, in your rv comment in the 2010 PHS article, I don't understand about how is it not relevant since it is relevant. Actually in its view history box I made a comment about my edit of it saying something like 'is my wording ok', but thank god Cyclonebiskit reworded it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

oh. For the damages I put, I copied it from the storm article but I don't have a source sorry. Also for the dates, I did thought that if the dates were just in the PAR but I decided to the full dates because the other storm's dates in the table is full. But is it Ok for me to help you in the article? Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• level 4 vital article
  .

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jason,

This was last updated with 2008 data. Are you able to locate any recent data and update?

Regards. Moondyne (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I took care of this; it has now been updated through 2010, which is the last year for which there is available data. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  List of retired South Pacific tropical cyclone names page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

Hi. For the article: List of retired Philippine typhoon names, you reverted my edit because I reverted this anon user about PAGASA strengths of typhoon and super typhoon. Well according to PAGASA, they added the STY strength just this year. Why don't we just put in the 2010's section that: in 2015, PAGASA added the STY category for people to not be confused? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The article History of tropical cyclone naming you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of tropical cyclone naming for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

We hope

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How is this redundant to a decent summary? It seems like a useful addition in my opinion.

A decent summary would mention that the system moved in to the basin as tropical storm or tropical cyclone whatever. As a result i do not see the need to mention that it wasn't renamed especially when a tropical cyclone is never renamed now days. I also see that its not done in other basins so i do not see why CPAC->WPAC should be any different.Jason Rees (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"not done in other basins" is a

WP:OSE-like argument. Renaming is still (in theory) done for ATL to EPAC crossovers, in theory, especially if it became a remnant low.--Jasper Deng (talk)

19:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ill respond properly over at Talk:2014 PTS in a mo but i will note here that the WMO RA IV Hurricane Committee decided against renaming tropical cyclones, when they move from ATL to EPAC and visa versa back in the early 2000s. While in theory a remnant low could move basins and reintensify I think the NHC would treat it as a completely new system and give it a new name like what happened a few years back when a system moved from EPAC to ATL (Henreitta?).Jason Rees (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

... Can you tell me ?... how many category 5 typhoon in South China Sea ? Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Typhoon Nangka (2015) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Typhoon2013 06:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I only ask because I'm not 100 percent familiar with the process. I know that the sandbox is for creating the article in ones own user space as their own version of the page, however how does one know when a page is of good enough quality (or whatever components are needed) for a page to be made? And does it take an administrator to undo the "redirect" component on the cyclone so that it doesn't keep redirecting to the main article when one tries to make the article? Undescribed (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Undescribed: Generally speaking a sandbox is not needed in order to create an article or override a redirect. However, in the case of Raquel, I felt that it would be better to collaborate on it with you in a sandbox and get it up to scratch before publishing it as it is system that is off marginal notability. Everyone has there own standards for a sandbox to become an article, however, in Raquel's case it will be when the MH is completed and the preps/impact are off a decent enough length. Hope this answers your question, if not feel free to ask away on this page and I will respond when I can since you do not learn without asking questions.Jason Rees (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I should note that i am taking the information from the advisories stored in the logs on each basin page.Jason Rees (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that answered my question well @Jason Rees: and I do appreciate you collaborating with me in the creation of the page in the sandbox. I was able to expand the MH a little bit but with all the advisories it is rather difficult in deciding what information would be best for the article. Then again, I guess that's the whole purpose of the sandbox. (wink) As for the preps/impacts section, the information is a little more sparse, but I will do my best to find new information. I was wondering if there is a database which shows the tropical cyclone warnings issued for the Solomon Islands, like on what day the warnings where issued for each province and the severity of the warning? (I'm not familiar with the levels of TC warnings in the SHEM). I thought that might be something to add to the preps section. Undescribed (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this collaboration might be what i need to get back into Wiki so your more than welcome, and if all goes well maybe we can collaborate on some more of the SHEM TC articles. Anyway in response to your comments, I still find it tough to decide what should go in the article after all these years, but generally I am looking out for things that help me tell the story of the system like how it moved, intensity changes, land impacts etc. For Preparations and impacts we are looking out for things like how they prepared for the system and not just the warnings before moving on to what impact it had and not just deaths. Anyway I think it would be good if you just went through and found all of the sources you can and put them on the talk page like

the example I have done. That way we can flip through them and see what they say before adding them to the article. Oh and for the Solomon Islands the tropical cyclone warnings were issued as media releases and we should be able to cite a few of them.Jason Rees (talk

) 18:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cyclone Ron page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2008–09 South Pacific cyclone season page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

You make cyclone tracks right? So is a track map necessary to the article: South Atlantic tropical cyclone? I mean like a season summary track map like all other basins which includes all storm tracks? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't tropical cyclones regularly form in the South Atlantic and South-east Pacific ? What makes it different from the South-west Pacific and South Indian oceans in that regard? Thanks!Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a tricky question to answer late at night so i wish to take time to consider my response, but first of all can you please define what you consider to be the South-West and South-East Pacific basins in terms of longitude.Jason Rees (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes... South-East Pacific is western ocean regions of Chile and Peru. I checked in Global tropical cyclone tracks and have not seen yet a tropical cyclone in this region and South Atlantic (excepted cyclone Catarina 2004).Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I wanted to check your thinking before i answered since i consider the Eastern Pacific to be the International Dateline (180) to America, while RSMC Nadi's basin is 160E to 120W. To the best of my knowledge conditions in the Southeast Pacific, closer to South America, are climatologically unfavorable for tropical cyclone development. The Peru/Chile current continuously brings cooler waters to the region which inhibits warm-core cyclones from forming. During El Nino years though you may find the odd system developing to the east of 120W but these would not be formallly named.Jason Rees (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Fold3. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Fold3 account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email me and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Gamaliel (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Post–2009 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. Since you had some involvement with the Post–2009 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I think we're pretty close to getting Raquel's article out. Just a bit more in the top and it'll be good to go. Izmik (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Izmik: , While i am flattered you think that its nearly ready to be sent out to the mainspace, i still feel that it needs more all roundbefore its published. This includes more impact and the MH being finished. You are more than welcome to help with this if you wish. :) Jason Rees (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at the 1999-00 Australian region cyclone season for a non-wiki project but I figure I found something that requires addressing in the article. I found that the WMO tracks for Steve, Vaughan, and Tessi (in IBTRACS) were incomplete (seems to be an problem with Brisbane). I also found the very useful Wellington BT had... more complete tracks. The problem is, they match up very well in everything except wind speed (pressure matches just fine). Wellington does not have Steve ever reaching cat 3 intensity (and similar findings for the other two storms), and curiously enough, it doesn't appear BoM does either. this page, found from a source on the wiki article, as well as this map, the accompanying text, and their headers, do not appear to support the fact that Steve was ever a cat 3 severe tropical cyclone. So I'm not sure why IBTRACS hasn't been changed to reflect this but it seems Wellington is up to date on this. I'm not sure what should be done about it. Also, is there any online best track data from BoM?

Also, concerning the CPAC list on

-- atomic7732 22:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve, Vaughan, and Tessi are not systems I have looked into in great detail, but as a brief response for now BoMs BT Database online shows 77.8 kts and the offline version shows 42m/s or 81.6 kts for Steve. As a result this would point to a 10-min wind from Bom of 80 knots. I will look into these systems and respond further when im less drunk.Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cyclone Namu page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, I'm Alpha Monarch. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tropical cyclone naming— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jason Rees.

In Main Page on Vietnamese Wikipedia, Typhoon Cecil (1985) is this week's featured article. Can you translate it to English (You can use the Google Translate on some difficult words)? I think it can be a good article on English Wikipedia. CVQT (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I just found a similar system to Raquel, it is 17F from 2001-02 season. One of the reasons why Raquel is more of in the 2014-15 season, is that its designation is continued from that season. Because of this, should 17F (at the moment, it's part of the 2002-03 season according to its season article) be apart of the 2001-02 season? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

17F should not be considered to be a part of the 2001-02 season, because while the designation was strangely rolled over from the 2001-02 SPAC: It boils down to the systems formation date. In 17Fs case the system was first noted on July 3 and not before June 30. Raquel was first noted on June 27 and moved into the Australian region during June 30. In Raquels case we also know that it has been considered to be a system in 2014-15 by the BoM, rather than a system in 2015-16.Jason Rees (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we mention ACE calculations in each season articles summary and is it necessary? The source is from the JTWC trackfiles and JMA archives if you are wondering. If not, sure I'll rm the other similar sentences in other articles, but how about the ACE table in some EPac season articles? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not particularly like using ACE in the seasonal summaries unless it is sourced back to an ATCR or some other document, so that we we can not be accused of committing Original Research over it especially when you stop and consider that its an American thing done using 1 min winds.Jason Rees (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In this: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/names.shtml , it says that there is no replacement for Oswald and these names (Rubina, Lam, Marcia and Isobel) needed a replacement. I am confused, so does that mean that those names are retired? The names are marked in red and says "Cyclone names marked for replacement". Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Lando is now retired and replaced with Liwayway, as said in the recently-updated list of PAGASA TC names. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jason Rees. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk

You know how in storm infoboxes, it mentions the intensity at the top (Eg. Typhoon, Cat5 etc)? And also includes the agency in brackets? In the SPac and AusR basin articles, it doesn't say the agency but says "(Australian scale)". Should we add in the agencies? Because there is this thing saying WarningCenter and FMS and BoM. I'll give you an example in the 2015-16 SPac cyclone season article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed there was a TD in both the 2011 and 2012 PTS articles. It says that the TD developed on 31/12 of 2011 and dissipated on 01/01 of 2012. However in the 2012 article, the same TD, which dissipated on that day, made the 2012 PTS start. So my question is, isn't the TD part of the 2011 season, not the 2012? Because it is a bit confusing because there was never a storm which dissipated on the next year which made the next season started. You know what I mean? So which means that the 2012 PTS started on January 13, not January 1 as the 2011 TD dissipated that day and part of the previous year.. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge,

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cyclone Tia page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk

) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

cyclones
... you were recipient no. 373 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Cyclone Esau you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cyclone Esau for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I saw the current bulletin from TCWC Brisbane about the current TL active today. It says a weak low instead of a tropical low, and this is the same for the weak low during Feb 5. I might be sure as well, when TCWC Perth started issuing bulletins of 07U, it formed on Jan 19 and states a weak low (it was mentioned a TL few days later when it was considered a moderate chance of developing). Also yeah, removing the low is ok, but as I said, let's wait and see as another TL might develop in the coming days. Depending on the designation of our next low, if it is 11U, then the Feb 5 low should only be mentioned in the Other systems section. If the next one is 11U, then totally rm the Feb 5 low and the current low should be recognized as 10U. However if it is different, then I'll think about it, I guess.

As i have said Typhoon2013, provide me with some proof that it was considered to be a tropical low then we can add it unitl that time we cant. The Brisbane TWO from Feb 6 mentioned that the system was a weak tropical low. However, we will see what happens over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The currently active TL is now confirmed designated as 10U. Therefore, he Feb 5 low should be 09U, as it was the only low forming from Stan. Also new low has a high probability of 11U. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Whenever I see in one the 3 minor basins (Perth, Darwin and Brisbane) and states there is a low or a weak low, I already think that the system is designated. We already have 2 systems that are right and can be a possibility to make the Australian region season articles better by filling in missing storms, and those 2 were 07U and *09U. That's why I wanted to find out if it works (I know and I said it many times). Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws and until we find out for certain, that the Feb 5 low was a tropical low or 09U it stays out. Personally it would not surprise me to see the Perth Low currently active called 09U.Jason Rees (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise it's because they are different? They may classify lows as weak systems but I may be wrong. It is better if someone at least leave a message for BoM or a BoM agent is also a user here in wiki. I actually left them a message about this 3 weeks ago, but they still haven't replied. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm going too fast here, but the BoM has now started tracking on our recent low in the IO and was designated as 09U. It is impossible and never happened before when we have 10U, then he next one will be a number before 10. So pretty much that Feb 5 low is 09U? Or did they make a mistake?Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop panicking and jumping to conclusions without looking at the evidence Typhoon2013 as you are the one making mistakes not the BoM. The Feb 5 weak low was not a tropical low or designated as such, so please just forget about that system and I have removed any mention to it on the Aus region page. Going through the TWO's for 09U shows that it was first noted on 8 Feb and that its struggled to develop until today when it is expected to become a tropical cyclone. I will look through Tait later but I strongly suspect that warning centers can chuck a designator on a system before it has become a tropical low or moved into their area of responsibility. This is especially true with Tait as it is located on the border of BoM/Nadi and thus it is highly probable that Nadi has assigned it the designator 10F. However, we are not going to write about each and every weak low and keep to the rule that when they call something a Tropical Low then we call it a Tropical Low and not before.Jason Rees (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jason. I'm just posting to let you know that

Notice how i said in prose: The system that became Tropical Low 09U was first noted within the monsoon trough, to the northwest of the Cocos/Keeling Islands on 8 February.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As a general note the dates will be probably be sured up further next week once both systems have dissipated.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. One more thing, is the exact border of the AusR and SPac basins at 160.0E? Or the whole 160E (160.0 - 160.9)? It's weird because Tatiana is at 160.5E, and the BoM is still monitoring it. Otherwise it is because some models predict the storm to re-emerge back to the AusR basin. So does that mean the storm is at the SPac now? Or still in both basins? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well where the basin boundaries lies is the ultimate question and something i have been curious, about for years and the answer is that there isnt one. In the case of Tait it is clear that the FMS and BoM have agreed that BoM should keep the primary warning responsibility for now. There are probably a range of factors behind this decision including the fact that its meant to be coming back into the Australian region, Victors threatening Fiji. This has also been done in the past and probably should have been done for Raquel. Personally I think Tait should be dumped into the Other Systems section of SPAC and the fact that it briefly moved out of the region should be ignored on the Aus page but we will see what happens.Jason Rees (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Tatiana still necessary for its own section or just leaving in the 'Other storms' section is fine. It is now confirmed that Tatiana is 10F, as 11F just developed yesterday. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It is better to have Tait in other systems imo, since it was it was barely in the basin.Jason Rees (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jason Rees, I was wondering if you are still interested in my contributions to your sandbox pages on cyclones such as Raja, Namu, Fergus, and Raquel? I know it has been a while but just let me know! =) --Undescribed (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Undescribed, By all means feel free to jump in and edit them when you have time :) I had to publish Oscar the other day as it was a worthy see also for Winston.Jason Rees (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Been thinking over the last couple of days that it is probably better for you, if we tackle some of the more recent systems like Tuni together rather than the oldies. See if you can do anything on Tuni's MH using the sources contained here. :)Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely. Sounds good to me! =) Also, I was wondering if you think that Raquel is ready to be published or if it still needs more work? --Undescribed (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Raquel could do with some more work on the impact - its getting there but it just needs something more... However, as i suggested try working on Tuni's MH using the sources provided. :) Jason Rees (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Raquel could use more detail on the impact section. And when the MH section is completed for Tuni then would you possibly be able to provide me with a link to Raquel's page? I can't seem to be able to find it anymore for some reason. Undescribed (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The sandbox for Raquel is here.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been seeing previews of what you did in the 2015 PTS article and want to make a new format. Are you thinking to remove the 'Retirement' section and place the retired name sentences in both the International and Philippine name sections? Any why don't you like to make the retired and replaced names to be in italics? I just want to know so I could do it to previous season articles as well. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yeah you are right, we should not put those 5 names already in the section about that they are retired and we need to wait for the real source from WMO. Also I agree about not putting a separate section for retirement names, but instead to put instead in the JMA and PAGASA names. I just separated the paragraphs for retirement and name info like what I did a while ago in the 2015 PTS article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So are you sure about this format now? Because I like the same format for the past seasons. Also one more thing, is it necessary to start another paragraph about the retired international names like we've decided for the Philippine one? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I have now copied the same format for some past seasons, especially in the 2011-2014 PTS articles. Would you like to look at them if there are any concerns etc? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I will start tomorrow! HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

So normally, the TSR issues forecasts in May, July and August, which the final report of the season is in January of the next year. Last year, TSR cancelled out doing the July forecasts, leaving it with 2 forecasts. Also TSR still has not (yet) issued their final report for the 2015 season, which I have been waiting for 3 months. I got a feeling that TSR is not going to publish forecasts soon with this, just like what they did for the Australian basin, which they discontinued forecasts since 2011. If this really happens, what do we do? Do we still add the season summary section with only unofficial agencies? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a very good reason which I do not wish to divulge, why the July forecast was cancelled - so im not too worried about them dropping their forecasts. However, if it were too occur then we would just rework the section for this years season since it is not a fixed format and ig you go back through the years then you would find that CityUHK issued forecasts for the WPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Teamwork Barnstar

Actually, this is the first time in WP to give out a barnstar to someone. I just like to thank you helping me out and talking about TC stuff within the project. I know that there have been some ups and downs between us in WP, but still, you are such a rolemodel/leader here in WP. So here, and again, thank you so much for helping me since I started here as well. I am looking forward to talking about future things to help our articles get better and making things accurate as we provide information to the world about TCs. So thank you. :) Typhoon2013 11:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Typhoon2013: for the Barnstar. Its been interesting working with you over the last year or so and following some of your ideas to fruition including your latest regarding making the seasonal forecasts table consistent around the project.Jason Rees (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but I suggest you that in your futures article creations, reestruturations or reconstructions, you first make your changes inside your sandbox, to apply all of them in the article in one edit once they are finished. It's very confusing for someone who access those articles to see unfinished sentences and broken links or tools, and it happens often when you are making many major edits. So it's natural for someone to revert it to a more stable revision, which can cause a trouble for you and for the readers/editors. But, it's just a suggestion.

But, will you do the same for La Niña article? I think that that article is in a more dire situation than El Niño's one. ABC paulista (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I liked what you did to the article overall, though I think it lacks some info about its scientific and technical stuff. The article doesn't talk about how El Niño affects the Southern Oscilattion and SOI, what happens to the Walker circulation on El Niño, how Madden–Julian oscillation affects El Niño and vice-versa, and other stuff like (Pacific) Ocean Currents, Teleconnection Patterns, etc. And I don't understand why Antarctica subsection is located on Impacts on the global climate section.

Still, I think it's better than it was before. But, do you plan to apply the same changes on ENSO and La Niña articles? ABC paulista (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jason Rees, hope you are well. =) Anyways, I have been very busy lately but have been editing Tuni's sandbox page in my spare time. Several days ago I added all the information I could find about Tuni up until dissipation. Do you think that there is anything else that should be elaborated on in that section? --Undescribed (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jason,

My explanation for the change I made in "Tropical cyclone" is as follows.

I noticed the difference in season of this region compared with the Australian and South Pacific region. One would expect the seasons to be more or less the same. So I checked reference nr. 41 esp. page I-5 "Cyclone season". From that I concluded that the period 1. July - 30. June is nothing more than an administrative period. This section also confirms that cyclones in the SW-Indian are most frequent in the southern summer.

I understand you are the specialist on this subject so it's up to you how to evaluate my remark. Best regards,

• Just a question: In the part Physical structure / Intensity
  

The last sentence mentions an upper-level anticyclone. Is reference nr. 17 used and interpreted in the correct way?

Hello Jason Rees, I was wondering why you undid a recent edit I made to Hurricane Marilyn in regards to it being the first M name to be retired. A similar statement was already made with Hurricane Luis and several others, so I figured that mentioning it for Marilyn would add congruity. --Undescribed (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTc)

I apologize if my edit seemed unconstructive due to it's trivial nature. Perhaps the similar statements should be removed from the other articles?--Undescribed (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Hello, Jason Rees. You have new messages at Undescribed)'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Undescribed (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jason. If you may not know, the first system of the 2016 Nio season had formed, and I have seen that Meow said that "we use DMY format in this basin". But in previous years, or I should say all, the articles are used in MDY format. I know that you don't really edit that much in these basins but, what do you think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and Meow: Im currently working on another project away from Wikipedia, so am i only briefly popping in. My view is that we have built the North Indian Ocean cyclone season articles using MDY, so I wonder why we are suddenly switching to DMY.Jason Rees (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody was aware of that mistake until Meow mentions. -- Meow 16:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Meow: What mistake? What Mention? The MoS says to retain the date format that the article has developed with unless there is clear evidence that it should be the other format. It is also worth noting that this issue was discussed just the other week Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me any country around the North Indian Ocean definitely using MDY. -- Meow 01:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is true that we use DMY within India (though I don't think there is an official norm to use DMY), but except for the 2015 and 2016 NIO seasons, all NIO seasons have dates in MDY format. Modifying the ones in question will be a tedious job, and I feel its too much for something as trivial as using MDY or DMY. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tatiraju.rishabh: Actually it's just the 2016 article now with the DMY format. IMO, DMY is better and I am already used to that as to being here in Wiki for 3 years. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you please give me some understanding to the reason behind the revert? It was a bad value, as the reference given shows. Additionally, it was a quiet change someone made in December 2015 that switched it from rapid intensification (used in most TC discussions and publications) to rapid deepening. I've been working on expanding the text for the section a bit to try to give a better idea why winds are used in TCs whereas pressure is used in ETCs and give it a tie to the explosive cyclogensis page... but if it's going to be reverted, perhaps I should just quit while I'm ahead instead of waste my time. But some kind of explanation would be most appreciated :-) Thanks JeopardyTempest (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Boy, I really do apologize, I'm not doing too well apparently, I entirely read past your reasoning :-( And also misread the NOAA page linked. Lot of wasted time there. Though, now the stranger thing is where they got that number. All the years of college and grad school, everything I came across was 24... or 48 if being extreme (maybe saw 36, perhaps even 30 some... but can't ever remember 42). The rapid cyclogenesis wiki page shows similar, but with adjustment for latitude (which would actually make the criteria less in the tropics). The first scientific article, I come across in AMS search, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/MWR-D-10-05002.1, says "93% of the rapid deepeners of the Roebber (1984) dataset, defined as meeting or exceeding the 1-Bergeron criterion [latitude-adjusted storm central pressure falls of at least 24 hPa in 24 h;". So quite perplexing value.

But, just as important, as noted earlier, is the oddity of using the phrase rapid deepening at all on the TC page. A quick search of AMS abstracts shows the words rapid+deepening+tropical show up together just 27 times... while rapid+intensification+tropical shows up 154 times (and most of the rapid deepening hits... actually have rapid intensification in the title itself). And in experience, I think it's the same pattern with NHC discussions. The reasoning which I was looking to add in is basically that: pressure is used in most cyclones because it's more consistent in them... but in TCs, the small and warm cores, and smooth water surfaces end up causing fairly inconsistent pressure relationships, but much more consistent wind speeds (shown with the reasonable ability of Dvorak ratings, then further validated with time through RAPIDSCAT and recon). (Really pressure gradient, not min pressure, is what should be used, but that's a whole other topic). Anyways, sorry, didn't mean to talk your ear off or be a pest... I'm certainly not as active in meteorology these days, and maybe I've got it all wrong somewhere? Certainly weird that the article that brought me into this (about the El Farro ship sinking) and the rapid cyclogenesis wikipage both punt "rapid deepening" to the TC article... but NHC doesn't even list the term in their glossary (if I didn't miss it there too), and the research community seems to not use it that way either. But sorry to open up a can of worms on the definition and term choice :-( And real apologies on making the ridiculous mistake of not reading your explanation (or the reference) right. Time to get some sleep apparently. JeopardyTempest (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

+++

Coincidentally, I'm absolutely with you on the too technical part. Seems the page has just a bit too much obtuse technicality to it already, as most science\math topic pages tend to. I certainly struggle sometimes with keeping language broad and smooth (as I probably did on my discussion up above), but I'm absolutely with you that we've got to try. Perhaps I should run my proposed changes by you before posting them, as anyone who's championing for basic language on such a page is one we need to be hearing more. JeopardyTempest (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jason Rees, I have been looking through the tutorial on how to generate maps of tropical cyclone tracks but having difficulty figuring it out. Do you need a specific coding device to use it? Also, is there a site that you can use to create hypothetical hurricane tracks for non-professional reasons? Thank you --Undescribed (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea or clues so am pinging @Keith Edkins and Cyclonebiskit:.Jason Rees (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Did they get back to you about it yet? --Undescribed (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Would you like to join in the poll/consensus/contribution of the Season forecasts table in the Wikiproject talk page? I would appreciate it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you give me a preview of what you are proposing? It should make it better for us to give opinions about your idea. ABC paulista (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just like we called this El Niño as a 2014-16 one because JMA declared its start on that year, being the first one to do so and opposed to BoM and NOAA that stated that the El Niño only started on 2015, I think that we should only say that the El Niño ended when all of the 3 consider that it ended. Start when the very first agency declare its arrival and finish when the very last agency declares its dissipation. This way, we can avoid things like

WP:POV. ABC paulista (talk

) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well we don't need to precipitate, or antecipate, a declaration since the article already cites BoM decision to call an end on this El Niño, and we shouldn't get used to such predictive actions, since saying that the El Niño ended when 2 of the 3 main agencies following ENSO developments would be kinda misleadig to the readers, and we can't quite forsee what action a agency would have, since these agencies use different methods and take into account different indexes when measuring ENSO. Different phenomena lead to different results. ABC paulista (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen your edit/revert summary of 01W. "we do not have any" of what? 1-minute winds? NRL Trackfile states 1-min winds of 20kts. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the JMA did not give any winds for 01W, we should not have any 10-minute winds for 01W. As for the one minute winds of 01W, the JTWC has confirmed that it had 1-minute winds of 25 knots rather than 20 knots. It is also worth noting that the warning criteria is 25 knots rather than 20kts.Jason Rees (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That "source" is from a forum, isn't it? There's no way that pass

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

About a month ago, when 01W was active I was pretty much the only one updating anything about that system. According to the JMA's weather maps early on June 28, it declared the dissipation of 01W as it was absorbed by a front. The only problem as of now is that your said that you cannot find anything on the 28th, therefore it dissipated on the 27th. I just asked Keith to archive some sources to the recent 3 systems so I can add it in. Also I thought we use the RSMC for dates? Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Also what made you say it is an unreliable source? A lot of sites said the same thing. Even 1 site I am looking at now says 8. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you may not know, I always update the Portal:Tropical cyclones/Active tropical cyclones article. If a TD is only tracked by JMA (not JTWC and PAGASA), what do we call them? Do we just simply call it as "Tropical Depression" or do we call it like "JMA Tropical Depression 5"? Please reply because somehow United States Man doesn't agree with me (check the view history box if not sure). Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: We just call them "Tropical Depression" since the JMA does not provide an official number for them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Thank you! Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:JTWC Best Track Analysis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk

The article Tropical Storm Bavi (2015) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tropical Storm Bavi (2015) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The data feed at http://weather.noaa.gov appears to have been discontinued. Do you have any ideas on alternative sourcing? Best to reply on the discussion thread at Talk:2016_Pacific_typhoon_season#Houston_We_Have_A_Problem--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 23:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

For what reason don't we need a retirement section on

I wish you would write it more. 113.186.239.204 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I have tried to expand it further this evening but have now run out of time. It hsoudl be in a lot better shape though. Feel free to contribute if you wish :) Jason Rees (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Remember when you sent me information about Typhoon Abe last year via LexisNexis? And the Mariners Weather Log? Do you still have access to these sources? Thank you.

Hi @

Dustin V. S.: I don't remember it, but in response to your question I do not have access to Lexis Nexis anymore. However, the Mariners Weather Logs are on my Google Drive and I think I have shared them with you if your real name is what I think it is :).Jason Rees (talk

) 21:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Google deleted my account I was using for Wikipedia or something. I'll try to email you with a new account I just created.

(talk)

22:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just sent you an email with the aforementioned account I created.

(talk)

22:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok i have invited you to view my TC folder, which the MWL's are stored in.Jason Rees (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay; thank you for allowing me access! :)

(talk)

22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal –
  SSTflyer (submissions
  ) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th Good article nominations ! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

So in accordance to TCWC Brisbane's latest bulletin, it says that "a number of transient tropical lows have developed". What does it mean by that? In animations, I only see 1 possible TL, not a number. I'm just confused with this and I don't even know what to say about it. Should this be added to the season? Or do we just wait? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Transient means short lived and as a result I would add the lows in to OS for now, with just a short little sentence and see what happens.Jason Rees (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, copy that. Though TCWC Brisbane also stated "a number of transient...", which means that there are more than 1. That's what I kind of got confused. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jason Rees. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I've linked them to 96W.INVEST on Talk:2016 Pacific typhoon season/June--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Since you had some involvement with the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jason. You know how I add in storm summaries in the 2016 PTS? Am I doing a great job? Because I think I have figured something out and I might change some things. So whenever I add in storm info in their sections, I noticed that there are a lot of sources I've used (reason why 2015 PTS has like 600 refs and 2016 PTS has 400). I think that information should be used for the storm article itself and therefore, I should reduce the info I put in and more of the effects info. I'll start doing that soon. You should know my goals, I like some of the PTS articles to have a GA rating. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Typhoon, What you need to do is too stop rushing and take your time to properly look at what you are putting into the article. For example nothing about Aere's impact should be in the tropical depression article if that should even exist. You also have to remember that each section is a story in itself and that there's no need to add 20 sources when 1 will do. The ideal section in the season has about 1 paragraph of MH and one of impact, however, there are exceptions to the rule when we have systems like Haiyan. Also there is no need to note when the JTWC first opened an invest or when it had a low medium or high rating just use the met details. Jason Rees (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, though I recently did Nepartak's section, and I'm planning to cut it down like that. Otherwise, this may be a risky move, but what if for PTS articles, we copy the format of the 2005 Atl article. Like create a separate article about "List of storms of 20__ PTS". It would be much better if you're talking about size, I guess, but I do not know, it's just a suggestion/opinion. But if so, we do need a lot of research and effort to put in. :| Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the section on Nerpartak, is what you have selected to put in and how you present it @Typhoon2013:. In an ideal world the season section should entice the reader into wanting to read more about Nerpartak and thus serve as an advert for the main article. Yes this means putting in the time and effort, but it has its own rewards and you want a PTS season to be a GA. As for the format I personally think the way we are doing them is the correct way but we need to make sure that there are not 600 references and the summuaries are written in a decent way without any information that isnt needed liek TCWC Perth thought that it had a chance of developing into a tropical cyclone when they havent.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Also @Typhoon2013: I want it on record how much some of us elder members of the project including myself and @Hurricanehink: appreciate your hard work over the last year in keeping the Pacific typhoon and other seasons up to date.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much, Jason, and was not expecting that! I just love to edit and I really love Tropical cyclones. Wikipedia even makes me practice my writing skills from you guys! :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll echo, I'm very appreciative of the work you've done maintaining the articles on the other side of the world! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Sorry just seen this right now and thanks, too. Also JR, I'll try and start doing a new-layout for PTS articles. Yes of course I really like adding in lots of info for storms, but for both 2015–16 PTS articles, the ref section is like "big". As I said before ^^, I'm thinking of a layout similar to the 2004 and 2005 AHS, where there will be a separate article for the storms and its summary. I'll also try and bring back in the Season timeline article, though, possibly it would be in a different layout as well where we may merge it in to the real PTS article. I'm sorry but I have a lot of ideas, and you know me right, as I said it many times, I like the PTS articles to look good as the AHS articles. I just wanted an upgrade in the project. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Do not waste your energies on creating a new style for the PTS - just focus on cleaning each section up using as fewer references as you can as that will resolve your problem with the references.Jason Rees (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Jason, Typhoon2013. The layout should be the same as other PTS articles, like 2002 Pacific typhoon season (a featured article). That means, every section needs references, nothing is overly detailed (so not too much focus on any one warning center - remember, it's about the storms, not the agencies). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Ok so maybe go to plan B, if there is. If I may ask, are there like tropical cyclone reports for each storm? In the Atlantic and Aus, I see like only 1 source for its meteorological history and the source is like a report of the storm. Are there similar reports in the WPac? If so, it would "definitely" help a lot. If not, then what/how? We can't just put 1 source which is the BT because it would not summarize the lot. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Those reports are available for older storms (pre-1998) from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Otherwise, you'll have to search various sources to get the info you're looking for. Take a look at some good and featured articles - that'll give you a good feel for how to make a good article in that basin. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If for example there is a system where the JTWC has tracked it from December 3-4, though the JMA has only tracked it during December 3, which storm duration do we use? Is it just the #1 rule where we always follow RSMC? Merry Christmas, btw. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Typhoon2013:, In an ideal world we would follow what dates the JMA as the RSMC use, however, there are going to be exceptions to the rule and we should just apply common sense.Jason Rees (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Because the reason why is that lately I've been interested in JMA TD BT as I did to the 2013-15 PTS articles, where during 2013, 33W was monitored by JTWC for 2 days, while JMA monitored it or like a few hours or something. That's why I came to see you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jason, long time no see, i have problem with a guy Typhoon2013. Hope you and your family have great night and Merry Chrismas. Truơng Huy Salvatore ^{- Thảo luận} 14:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Trương, Its nice to see you around the Wiki again and I hope that you and your family have a merry Christmas despite all the flooding of recent months in Vietnam. Anyway after taking a look at your contributions, I assume that your problem with @Typhoon2013: is him removing the December 10, JMA TD to other storms. Can you confirm that this is right? Jason Rees (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's right Jason, this TD caused even greater rain, flood and big wind than the November Vietnam TD, total damage reached $53.2 million (đ1.210 trillion). 30 people of my country have been killed. Truơng Huy Salvatore ^{- Thảo luận} 14:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest Trương, I need to do a bit of digging into the situation in Vietnam, as it may be better to relegate both the November and December Tropical Depressions to OS whol but at the same time create an article dealing with the flooding there. However, I will need time to look into it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Final-Fantasy-HH: Perhaps change the Nov 2016 Vietnam TD article? And rename it to 2016 Vietnam flooding etc... I could help change it for you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This would be an interesting idea to pursue @Typhoon2013:, however, I would be very curious to hear Trương's thoughts on the impact as he can help shape our thinking in this matter.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. He's apparently Vietnamese so he should know more about the impacts of the systems. Because to be very honest, an article is the only possible way to sum it up. Either mention both TDs in 1 article, or have separate articles for both. Though, some reason it just feels weird for having 2 Vietnam TD articles in the same year, or maybe it's just me. I would also love to help on these TD article. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:54 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion right now. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Using JMA weather maps to extend western Pacific storm tracks needs to stop. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi and first of all Happy New Years. So of course, 2016 is over and is it right to remove the 2016 lists of the Atlantic and EPac sections in Tropical cyclone naming? Because that is what you did last year and I'm just confirming it to you just in case. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:US Inflation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Samsara (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 219.79.127.179 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Hi. For sure we keep talking about this (sorry if annoying), but there was a TD that developed east of PH during 20/3 and dissipated that same day. Though the system re-developed on 21/3. The JMA did not downgrade the system to a LPA but it just re-developed. So these are two separate systems right because we have no source that this is the same system? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not annoying because i suspect that there isnt anyway to have consistency with these systems and we have to take them on a case by case basis. However, in this case @Typhoon2013: I may not be the best person to be asking about it, as I haven't been around on the current systems much recently, but from a quick look at the JTWC STWA's and the WWJP25s that the JMA only dropped it for one WWJP25 before readding it. As a result, I would keep it as one system until @Supportstorm: finds the BT for the system in a few months time.Jason Rees (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)